The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1887-08-04
A CLAIM
Which a Correspondent Thinks Ought to
HIVE liesn Allowed. i EFk4tE

Whteft a Correspondent Thinks Ought to
Have llssn Allowed. si
Tothe Editor Of he lntattgeaeer.
sla:--0ns OF the most upjuat decisions
Of pension claims Is shown in the pension
caae Of Emanuel Francis, who lives a few
mileG from Moundsville-clalm No. 252,.
1898. Mr.. Francia was about aixty.two
years old whom he enlisted in Company
B, Twelfth Wos! Virginia Volunteers.
He served in active service three yesrs
and during that time contracted a disease
Of the eyes, which caused him to lose his
sight. And In 1879 he applied for a pen.
sion and a short time ago his claim was
decided adversely,
To show how unjust the decision Ia, 1t
is only necessary to give a part OF the
evidence filed in behalf Of the claimant.
The government was satisfied his sight
was good at tho time OF his enlistment,
and only desired evidence to show the
loss Of sight was caused by disease con.
tractod while in the service. It was given
In evidence that on Hunters raid the
soldiers were without tents and a great
deal Of the time without food. They slept
out In the rain and waded several streams
OF water. THE, tho claimant alleges,
produced inflammation Of the eyes, which
was followed In course OF time by total
loss Of sight. AS tending to establish that
Tact, Sargeant A. Bryson, OF Moundsville,
testified that he found Mr.. Francis one
morning while on tho above raid sleeping
In a grave yard, his eyes so swollen that
they could not be opened till he (Bryson)
carried water and washed them that for
several days thereafter 1t was necessary to
place his hand on a comrades, shoulder
to be guided in marching. MI. Francis
made affidavit thet his sight failed him
continually from that time till it was en-
tirely gone.
d.. Bryan, surgeon Of his regiment, tes-
titled that he remembered the occasion OF
the, claimsnt's eyes being inflamed as al.
legged: md he could not treat them by
reason Of his medicines having been cap.
tured by tho rebels. One OF his neigh
bo1s testified that he had noticed the
the claimants sight failing within three
or four months after his discharge. Two
others OF his neighbors testiged that they
had noticed his sight failing within q year
otter his dischsrge-it may have been less
than a year, but they were satisfied it was
not more. This is only . portion Of the
evidence introduced In the claimants be.
half, and it would seem sufficient in any
court OF justice to establish the point in
question almost beyond a reasonable
doubt. The witnessss are Of undoubted
probity. being come OF the best citizsns Of
Marehalt county.
Yet tho claim wss rejected both by the
Pension Department and tho Department
Of The Iaterior, the officials claiming, &c
they expressed, that there was . hiatus in
the evidence-that the claimant did not
show his eyes were diseased at the time
of his discharge, and that there was no
hoapitable record Of his disease OF the
eyes. The disease was contracted on the
raid above mentioned, or 6 retreat when
everything was in confusion. He wac dis.
charged three hundred miles from home
among strangers who would not he likely
to notice his eyes; and no lived in the
country where he was not in daily contact
with bis Deighbors 30 they could notice
that Immediately upon his discharge hin
sight was affected. 10 demand such a
thing was unreasonable and allowed lack
Of judgment. Taken as a whole this caee
is certainly a remarkable one. E.
MonndsriHe, August 2.